packed into A1 and A3. The evidence of PW4 was that AI was sent to the Forensic Laboratory for forensic analysis. PW3 the liaison officer gave evidence of how he received Al from PW4 and kept until it was analyzed on 14th of February 2011 by PW2. He also gave evidence of how the Al was returned. Al was admitted as Exhibit F and the forensic reports were admitted as Exhibit E. The report confirms that the powdery substance tested positive for Cocaine. Counsel referred to section 42 of the Evidence Act which provides as follows: "Either party to the proceedings in any criminal case may produce a certificate signed by the Government Chemist, the Deputy Government Chemist, an Assistant Government Chemist, a Government pathologist or entomologist, or the Accountant-General or any other chemist so specified by the Government Chemist of the Federation or of the State, any pathologist or entomologist specified by the Director of Medical Laboratories of the Federation or of the State, or any Accountant specified by the Accountant-General of the Federation or of the State (whether any such officer is by that or any other title in the service of a State or of the Federal Government), and the production of any such certificate may be taken as sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein" He submitted that in addition to producing the forensic reports of the Exhibits in this case, the Forensic Analyst was called as a witness and she was cross-examined by the defence. Counsel further submitted that all the ingredients of the offence of importation have been proved by the prosecution. The onus consequently shifted to the accused (appellant herein) to prove lawful authority. Counsel cited Section 142 of the Evidence Act which provides that "when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him"; and section 143 of the Evidence Act which further provides that: "Any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse, qualification whether it does or does not accompany in the same section the description of the offence in the Act, order, by-law, regulation or other document creating the offence may be proved by the accused, but need not be specified or negatived in the charge; and if so specified or negatived, no proof in relation to the matter so specified or negatived shall be required on the part of the prosecution". Counsel cited the case of Ibrahim Abdul-Rahaman V. Commissioner of Police (1971) 1 NNLR 87 or 1971 NMLR 24 where it was held that "the onus was on the accused to show that he falls within the exceptions allowed in law." Counsel submitted that the Appellant failed to prove lawful authority to import cocaine into the country. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Respondent has proved count II that is importation of 165 Kilogrammes of cocaine against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and to affirm the conviction of the Appellant accordingly.